View Single Post
Old
02-10-2005, 05:57 PM
  #19
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,283
vCash: 500
Not sure why you say that nasty...

I think we all recognize the NHL's financial problems. We also recognize that Bettman, in his 10+ years at the helm, has not marketed the product too well to bring in additional revenues. We also recognize that he expanded to places like Nashville, which noone thinks made too much sense. He also didn't make changes to the game that would make the game better and more marketable. Those issues have caused part of the problem we're seeing now.

Also, not many believe the NHL lost as much as it says. Further, Chicago, St. Louis and the Rangers represent approximately 40% of those total losses. I don't think anyone out there is crying that these guys aren't financially stable or viable. There are thoughts that revenues are understated and costs overstated - I can't say 100% for sure, but I'd venture to guess that's true.

The owners are blamed because it is them who drove up player costs, and now they're all collectively crying they did it.

Finally, the NHL is a $2+ billion business, hardly an un-followed sport. The players need to make concessions for the sport to continue. I think we all recognize that. Some believe there should be some semblance of a free market, albeit, as Fish once aptly put, effectively puts a cap somewhere if the tax is high enough. Others just think it should be a hard cap in the range suggested (which makes the Rangers, Detroit, Philly and others even more profitable). But whatever it is, it must be a give and take. The players did offer to give up a good deal (again, Bobby Holik will give up nearly $5 million - sorry that he's being overpaid, but to anyone, that's a lot of money). Of course they need to give up more. And at the same token, the owners need to give something, as opposed to take everything away.

Fletch is offline